Everyone has to stop thinking what's best for themselves and needs to start thinking about what's best for all. How is it better for the league to have shorter contracts? We've already established that offers less than 5 million can be for 1 or 2 years in length. If that player blows up, then so be it. Isn't that kind of the point of an auction draft? To get a good player for less money? It's all part of the strategy involved.
I've been away from the party for a few days, but from what I've read, I agree with this 100%. It's the very reason I put $350K for two years on Speights and Mason (would have put $250K for two years, but I think both players already had one year mins on them). Speights, in particular, I bid on, in the chance that Dalembert can actually get traded and open up some more minutes for him. And I think a manager should have the opportunity to hang onto a player for one addl season if that player blows up. 2 years is the max they can lock him for anyway and they should be rewarded for locking that player up when nobody else wanted him.
I disagree with fluid movement of players, etc. There'll be plenty of that IMHO. Especially since this is H2H with all sorts of different draft and category strength strategies.
Further, a bid of $250K for two years is not
a min bid and should not be trumped by a min bid (it's called min for a reason). There's no logic on why someone who bids $250K minimum (for one year) would outbid somebody who wants to lock up the player for two years and has the cap space to do so. That makes no sense to me.